Legal Opinion

State v. Pipkin

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 2013No. CC 200904318; CA A142469; SC S059769PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

Defendant was charged with first-degree burglary, which occurs when a person “enters or remains unlawfully” in a dwelling “with an intent to commit a crime therein.” See ORS 164.225; ORS 164.215. At trial, defendant argued that the state should be required to elect whether it intended to proceed on the theory that he entered the victim’s home unlawfully or on the theory that he remained in her home unlawfully. Alternatively, relying on State v. Boots, 308 Or 371,780 P2d 725 (1989), cert den, 510 US 1013 (1993), defendant requested an instruction that at least 10 jurors had to agree on one (or…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Schad v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Apodaca v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. State v. LaundyOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. State v. LotchesOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. BootsOregon Supreme Court · 1989

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. State v. Clemente-PerezOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. AshkinsOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. DickersonOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. State v. PhillipsOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  5. State v. Guzman/HecklerOregon Supreme Court · 2019

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API